Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2002-03, which was under appeal before the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the present appeals until the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the appeals until the resolution of the matter by the NCLT. The assessee is permitted to revive the appeals upon resolution, and the department retains the right to recover the demand.
The Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the appeals until the resolution of the matter by the NCLT. The assessee is permitted to revive the appeals upon resolution, and the department retains the right to recover the demand.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting that the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B was pending before the CIT(E). The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal or seek recall after the pending action is completed.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appeal proceedings until a council is appointed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The assessee has the right to revive the appeals once the NCLT council is appointed to represent them.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed payments of ESI/EPF made under section 143(1) was proper and justified. The Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services case was relied upon.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to properly address the assessee's claim of agricultural income and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, both the quantum addition and the penalty were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, particularly concerning the sale proceeds of agricultural land and alleged "on money" receipts. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2002-03, which was under appeal before the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the present appeals until the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the matter was sub judice in the civil court and had not yet reached a decision. Consequently, the appeal proceedings were abated.
The tribunal held that once a petition is admitted by NCLT and moratorium is declared, no proceedings can be initiated or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appellate proceedings are abated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that certain issues required re-adjudication. Consequently, several grounds of appeal were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's claim regarding educational receipts being below Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on this specific ground. The penalty appeals were also remitted pending the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's claim regarding educational receipts being below Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on this specific ground. The penalty appeals were also remitted pending the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's claim regarding educational receipts being below Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on this specific ground. The penalty appeals were also remitted pending the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit amount of Rs. 14.50 lakh had no relevance to the assessee's alleged payments above the registered price. Finding no evidence of such cash payments by the assessee and noting divergent views taken by revenue authorities, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit amount of Rs. 14.50 lakh had no relevance to the assessee's alleged payments above the registered price. Finding no evidence of such cash payments by the assessee and noting divergent views taken by revenue authorities, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that certain issues required re-adjudication. Consequently, several grounds of appeal were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and the cross-objection filed by the revenue. This was done with liberty to revive the appeal upon completion of pending jurisdictional actions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not failed to comply with the payment as directed by the ITSC, as payments were made, albeit belatedly. Furthermore, it was noted that no undisclosed income was derived or specified during the search statement, making the assessee eligible for immunity under Section 271AAA(2)(i).
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment petition as the transfer process was pending. The appeal was deemed liable to be abated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that certain issues required re-adjudication. Consequently, several grounds of appeal were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's claim regarding educational receipts being below Rs. 1 crore. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on this specific ground. The penalty appeals were also remitted pending the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the late fee of Rs. 1,67,750/- levied under Section 234E for the late filing of TDS returns. However, the short deduction of TDS amount of Rs. 1,47,454/- was not considered under Section 234E and remained unadjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit amount of Rs. 14.50 lakh had no relevance to the assessee's alleged payments above the registered price. Finding no evidence of such cash payments by the assessee and noting divergent views taken by revenue authorities, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was correct in invoking Section 263 regarding the violation of Section 44ADA, as the assessee failed to comply with its conditions. However, the Tribunal found that the PCIT erred in treating the surrendered income as unexplained investment instead of business/professional income, as it was generated from the assessee's activities and verified by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly claimed depreciation at 30% on tippers used in its business of transporting goods on hire, supported by ITAT precedents and circulars. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income originated from business income, as stated by the assessee during the survey and not disproved by the revenue. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 and the application of Section 115BBE were uncalled for.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), is not treated as a State Government employee for the purpose of full exemption under Section 10(AA)(i). Therefore, the exemption limit of Rs. 3 lakh as per Section 10(AA)(ii) is applicable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(E) had rejected the application ex parte. Considering the extension of dates by CBDT and the assessee's reasons for non-appearance, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting additional evidence without justification and by not adhering to the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting additional evidence without justification and by not adhering to the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting additional evidence without justification and by not adhering to the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision, held that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally in favour of the assessee. Section 80P(4) specifically excludes cooperative banks engaged in banking business with an RBI license.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on vague information and that the CIT(A) erred in upholding it. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) should have considered the claim that the agricultural land belonged to the HUF, supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable on a dead person. The appeals are liable to be abated until the legal heirs of the assessee are brought on record.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the source of the cash deposit as part of the sale proceeds of agricultural land. The revenue authorities had not properly verified the transaction or confronted the assessee's affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the source of the cash deposit as part of the sale proceeds of agricultural land. The revenue authorities had not properly verified the transaction or confronted the assessee's affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee participated in penalty proceedings but did not adequately substantiate her claims about the sale of property or lack of alternative addresses. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made efforts to serve notices and that the assessee was in default for not filing the return as required.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings due to improper issuance of notices. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the remand report to the assessee for rebuttal, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable because the assessee failed to file the required order under Section 143(1) of the Act with Form 35.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's rejection of the rectification application. The issue raised was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the application was filed after the prescribed limitation period.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the revised tax audit report and evidence of timely payments. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification of the documents and a speaking order, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable on a dead person. The appeals are liable to be abated until the legal heirs of the assessee are brought on record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's rejection of the rectification application. The issue raised was not a mistake apparent from the record, and the application was filed after the prescribed limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on vague information and that the CIT(A) erred in upholding it. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) should have considered the claim that the agricultural land belonged to the HUF, supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the share of profit or loss from a partnership firm is exempt under Section 10(2A) of the Act and should not be added to the total income. The addition made by the CPC was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a month-wise cash flow statement and bank withdrawals that demonstrated sufficient cash balance to cover the deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A without affording the AO an opportunity to rebut it. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the principles of natural justice and relevant case law.